Steven, You claim you need a definition of a "good" photograph, and Jeremy's defined some of the mechanical requirements for you, but I'd suggest you go to your local library and check out as many books as you can by Eugene Atget, Paul Strand, Edward Weston, Andre Kertesz, Chim (David Seymour), Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Doisneau, Willy Ronis, Brassai, Walker Evans, Elliott Erwitt, Dorothea Lange, W. Eugene Smith, Marc Riboud, Robert Frank, Garry Winogrand, Lee Friedlander, and Steve McCurry. Study the books. It's looking at the work of the masters that tells you what a good photograph is.

Actually, I was asking for a definition of photography in response to Jeremy’s post in which he wrote that he wasn’t sure the image work well as a photograph. I was trying to understand what he meant by that statement by getting a definition of photography. I do not agree that because the image lacks depth that it cannot be considered a photograph. As far as creating depth in photographs there has been a long tradition of abstract photography where the goal is exactly the opposite, Aaron Siskinds work comes to mind.I enjoyed your list of photographers as I admire their work greatly. However your list ignores many of the more conceptual photographic artists such as Robert Adams, David Hockney,Cindy Sherman,Joyce Tennison, The Starn Twins, John Phal. I am a great admirer of the masters of photography, but for my own work I am trying to go beyond the traditional notions of beauty. It may not always work, but to say that it is not photography ignores huge chunks of photographic history that traveled outside the traditionalist movement.

I actually think it is one of the more intriguing photographs I have ever seen posted here-far more interesting than the usual over-processed landscapes or bird photographs. I could see a hair more contrast in the shadows, but that is about all.

I actually think it is one of the more intriguing photographs I have ever seen posted here-far more interesting than the usual over-processed landscapes or bird photographs. I could see a hair more contrast in the shadows, but that is about all.

Kirk, if I could have a definition of what that means...

No, just pulling your leg because I've nothing better to do right now, caught between watching the floods in Oz and waiting for delivery of a damn car I've already paid for but is still sitting in the distiributor's showrooms because this is an example of mañana and mañana might well take over a week. And there's supposed to be a crisis - yes, nobody can face dealing with the dealers is more lilke it!

Reminds me of Chuck Berry's song 'just sign on that line, and I'll have it brought down to you in an hour's time.' Not here, Chuck, baby!

Steven perhaps you could state what is your vision of the image? Is it straight from the camera without processing or have you artistically enhanced it? This would possibly dispel some of the doubt surrounding the image. Then again mystery adds something to it?

... but for my own work I am trying to go beyond the traditional notions of beauty. It may not always work, but to say that it is not photography ignores huge chunks of photographic history that traveled outside the traditionalist movement.

Steven, There's a reason "traditional notions of beauty" are traditional. As far as those "huge chunks of photographic history that traveled outside the traditionalist movement" are concerned, they just kept on traveling and never came back. Photography is a recording medium. If you want to go beyond photography's natural function, get rid of your cameras and buy brushes and paints. You're right. By definition, anything that comes out of a camera is a "photograph." But, by way of anology, anything made with paint and a brush is a "painting," including the outside of your house.